At PMA, this year, SONY presented SIX "idea" lenses, that had internal motors and if you really had a choice ... which ones would you purchase for your bag?
I can't see myself using any of these. Got it all covered really.
I selected none of the above, which is pretty sad since I'm in the process of building a lens collection.
If I had plenty of money, lol, about the only one that would be potentially appealing is the 500 mm. But, given the likely price, I think I would get more bang for my buck and be better served by buying the Tamron SP 200-500 mm f/5-6.3 AF.
Yeah, how about it? I have always been fonder of the TAMRON return on quality than dumping thousands into heavy-duty glass for a "not for profit" venture like mine. I just cannot qualify it without having one heck of a budget for such things. I'd rather put the money towards the trip itself.
I clicked 50mm, but I should have selected "lets see some real lenses." I was really disappointed by that lineup, and it honestly had a bit to do with leaving Sony. Except for the 28-75 that already exists as a Tamron, it didn't seem like they were doing anything other than lo end consumer, with the one (presumably) super expensive zoom.
A fan of Tamron I am, but IF they could put out a 500mm constant f/4 with a high speed motor..hmmmmmmmm, only the price would stand in my way!!! may just have to settle for the bright light and the tamron 200 - 500!
Jim, I'm not out to spend money like a mad man. My production level simply does not warrant it. If I had a customer pouring over my work, that would be different, but they are not and I'm not shooting museum quality prints. So ... why dump the cash?
I've spent a few bucks ... and most of the lenses are exceptionally lightweight, compared to the hefty "pro" glass that the upper end SONY glass is. It easily weighs twice as much and I have been on a crusade to lighten my load. Lugging pounds and pounds of glass to an air show simply is not my kind of fun.
We could compare them, side by side, but why? You have already made your case you would prefer the heavy stuff ... and I say "have at it." More money, more weight ... why wait? Oh yeah, no money! Works for me.
I often ask myself:
"Do I have the skills necessary to make marketable work?
Could I produce a line of folks who clamor for want of seeing and being a part of my work?"
The answer is, of course, "Who knows?" :D
It's the consumer that makes that decision. As you are aware, this has not been for profit and I feel quite comfortable with the array of lenses I've chosen to keep.
Thanks for caring. :) And yes, the fund is open for contributions to the cause. May the pile grow and grow ... Attachment 46432
Duck Duck Dive Dive. You have refined it to an art. You sail right on by my point.
My point is: you have spent money like a madman. Three, count 'em, three Tamron super zooms all covering basically the same focal length, you could have purchased one good lens for all of that money. 70-200, 70-210, 70-300, 80-400, holy cow over over lap lap, again you could easily eliminate 3 of these 4 lenses. You have spent the money, it's just in your blind Tamron Kool-aid drinking, you purchase over and over trying to find something decent.
Tamron 17-50, 28-75, 70-200, 200-500, that's all you need, you're covered. Yet you've purchased lenses all around these and in between these, and you're proud of it. I have no right whatsoever to tell you how to spend your money, but when you insinuate that purchasing the good glass is too expensive, you have to take a look at your gear list and wonder why all those overlapping mediocre lenses isn't an example of expensive.
I have 4 pro level lenses that offer my body maximum performance that cover the same range you have. I tried a couple of Tammys and they immediately went on eBay, they just didn't measure up, not even close. That was all the proof I needed to never purchase another Tamron lens. I understand that Tamron does make some optical gems, they aren't cheap though(less than some OEM counterparts)and the AF makes them less of a bargain.